A Fuller Explanation Of Coincidence:

[cksalmon]

I believe that Ive been over this a millian times.

1) Nehem and Nahom, phonetically, are basically the same word. They are homophones. In semetic languages, it is the constanants that matter.

Well, actually, the two (Nehem and Nahom) are not homophones at all. Assuming a semitic origin, they share a triconsonantal root (NHM), which certainly relates them at that level (again, assuming a semitic origin for both), but homophony is patently contra-indicated by your supplying of different interpolational vowels, as well as by your assumption of a common meaning and root.

Best.

CKS

[Luigi]

Dismiss the Holley Hits. Fine. But you will then have to dismiss NHM by the same logic. imo.

One has nothing to do with the other. Holly's "hits" have been refuted. Where is your refutation of Lehi's trail,absent of red herrings.

The refutation of Lehi's trail, as no one seems to be getting-is that if it stands alone then it is not very significant. There are, as has been shown, numerous times when seemingly 'amazing' or 'impossible' parallels are discovered regarding someone's predictions or writings-whether those writings were fictional or allegedly authentic. Such evidence is credible-or at least worth investigation-when all or most of what is written/predicted corresponds to what we actually find. Now if The Book of Mormon portrayal of Mesoamerica and the Middle East matched more correctly with that agreed upon by non-Mormon scholars then the Nahom would add to the remarkable evidence. But when it stands essentially alone with a few other hits, especially when there is so many things that The Book of Mormon states that are considered inconsistent by most scholars, then the Nahom evidence is much easier to dismiss as potential coincidence. I for one think the Nahom evidence is neat but again I understand that if it stands alone(or almost alone) that it really doesn't constitute strong evidence.

[Olavarria]

I believe that Ive been over this a millian times.

1) Nehem and Nahom, phonetically, are basically the same word. They are homophones. In semetic languages, it is the constanants that matter.

Well, actually, the two (Nehem and Nahom) are not homophones at all. Assuming a semitic origin, they share a triconsonantal root (NHM), which certainly relates them at that level (again, assuming a semitic origin for both), but homophony is patently contra-indicated by your supplying of different interpolational vowels, as well as by your assumption of a common meaning and root.

Best.

CKS

thanks for the heads up. Ill stop describing them as homophones

[maklelan]

I think it's a great parallel. It does everything that a valid Nahom should do. But, when weighed against the entirety of the problems and anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, it is not a compelling parallel. Until you can account for the serious problems in the book, NHM is an interesting hit, but nothing more.

I seriously mean you no offense, but this is ridiculous. If a person finds a bloody knife in the hands of a man connected to a murder, the defense cannot say, "Well, once you fix the holes in your story and figure out what to do with the other guy you have in custody we'll consider your bloody knife." How can weak evidence at all influence the weight of a direct hit? I'm astonished that such an argument is being made.

Initially your side argued that the correlations must be considered individually, and now you're saying they have to be efvaluated collectively. This is utterly ludicrous.

Think of it another way: James Fenimore Cooper wrote his book "The Prairie" long before the western US prairies were settled. The man had never been there and had only a superficial understanding of what the place was like. But when pioneers did start moving to the prairies, many of them said it was just the way that Cooper described. Was it really? Or were their expectations colored by their reading?

What part of the evidence appears to you to be misinterpreted? The place really is called NHM. It really is in exactly the spot the Book of Mormon says it should be. It really does have a huge burial ground along the incense trail. It really does lie almost perfectly east of the only spot on this entire planet that fits Nephi's description of Bountiful. What are we reading into it?

[Not quite me]

I think it's a great parallel. It does everything that a valid Nahom should do. But, when weighed against the entirety of the problems and anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, it is not a compelling parallel. Until you can account for the serious problems in the book, NHM is an interesting hit, but nothing more.

I seriously mean you no offense, but this is ridiculous. If a person finds a bloody knife in the hands of a man connected to a murder, the defense cannot say, "Well, once you fix the holes in your story and figure out what to do with the other guy you have in custody we'll consider your bloody knife." How can weak evidence at all influence the weight of a direct hit? I'm astonished that such an argument is being made.

Initially your side argued that the correlations must be considered individually, and now you're saying they have to be efvaluated collectively. This is utterly ludicrous.

So I'm ludicrous. Cool. You're misrepresenting what I said. I'm conceding it's a great parallel. Maybe even a direct hit. I don't know. But in isolation, it is not conclusive evidence of anything. As we've seen throughout this thread, try hard enough, and you'll find a parallel, even a seeming direct hit like this one. That's not conclusive, especially when weighed, as I said, against the huge problems in the Book of Mormon.

Initially your side argued that the correlations must be considered individually, and now you're saying they have to be efvaluated collectively. This is utterly ludicrous.

When did I say that they need to be considered individually?

What part of the evidence appears to you to be misinterpreted? The place really is called NHM. It really is in exactly the spot the Book of Mormon says it should be. It really does have a huge burial ground along the incense trail. It really does lie almost perfectly east of the only spot on this entire planet that fits Nephi's description of Bountiful. What are we reading into it?

I'm not saying that all. I'm saying we're seeing what we want to see here, whether or not there is an actual relationship.

So again, it may be a direct hit. So what?

[cdowis]

>In your opinion, what is the chance that the true site of Ishamel's burial is actually somewhere else on the Arabian peninsula, and not the NHM site?

I have not thought about it. I am not particularly interested in a particular "true" site for a grave, but in putting together the pieces of this puzzle, full of interesting coincidences, as you call it.

I am interested in the tapestry, rather than an individual thread. Individual threads can be dismissed, but the tapestry is rather compelling.

[The Dude]

>In your opinion, what is the chance that the true site of Ishamel's burial is actually somewhere else on the Arabian peninsula, and not the NHM site?

I have not thought about it. I am not particularly interested in a particular "true" site for a grave, but in putting together the pieces of this puzzle, full of interesting coincidences, as you call it.

So you aren't very interested in whether the NHM site is really related to the BoM or just a bunch of supposition? Okay, gotcha. Glad we resurrected this thread.

[cdowis]

I answered your question. Now are you going to answer whether you still maintain the "just another coincidence" theory.

Is that still your contention? Is that the best you can do.

(I understand fully well why you do not want this thread to be resurrected.)

[The Dude]

I answered your question.

You did not answer my question. You only said you haven't thought about it and aren't interested in it. That is evasion.

Now are you going to answer whether you still maintain the "just another coincidence" theory.

Is that still your contention? Is that the best you can do.

You think my theory is "just another coincidence" but did you actually read the opening post? I think I said coincidence being only part of the explanation -- I also provided a causal component for why some names appear Egyptian, Hebrew, or whatever, in the BoM.

(I understand fully well why you do not want this thread to be resurrected.)

Do you? You clearly don't understand my thoughts about this thread. Somehow, cdowis, you have a peculiar view of yourself, the strength of your arguments, and the weakness of other peoples' arguments. I have no idea where you are getting this glib self-confidence, but I suspect it contributes to your stamina for participation on internet message boards.

No personal insults please -mods

[KevinG]

The scientific rigor in this thread is certainly an interesting contrast to the out of hand discounting of the study on altruism in another thread.

Seems we like to pick and choose where we apply our rigor in analysis.

...you have a peculiar view of yourself, the strength of your arguments, and the weakness of other peoples' arguments. I have no idea where you are getting this glib self-confidence, but I suspect it contributes to your stamina for participation on internet message boards.

Nice. Is that irony or projection?

...and no psychological assesments of other posters. -mods

[The Dude]

(I understand fully well why you do not want this thread to be resurrected.)

You clearly don't understand my thoughts about this thread. Somehow, cdowis, you have a peculiar view of yourself, the strength of your arguments, and the weakness of other peoples' arguments. I have no idea where you are getting this glib self-confidence, but I suspect it contributes to your stamina for participation on internet message boards.

No personal insults please -mods

Sorry. He pushed my buttons. You know how I get when people 1) fantasize that they know what I'm thinking and 2) pretend to know why I am thinking such things as they fantasize.